1.

Imagine that you were working for Ford Motors as an engineer designing portions of
the gas tank, and upon further testing you found a flaw in the design that could
potentially lead to the harm or even death of a customer. You report your findings to
your manager, and he told you that he would take the matter to the company president
immediately. He does do this. However, after a few weeks nothing has happened. What
would be your ethical responsibility as an engineer?

An Engineer has a responsibility to employ reasonable engineering practices

concerning the safety of the products he or she develops. Whenever we notice any fault
or even it’s a slightest doubt, we should immediately work on it and take precautions.
After informing the manger, if I find that no action is taken, I would remind and explain
him again the issue. It’s natural that upper management will not have engineering
backgrounds, and that it is the engineer’s obligation to make sure that management
understands the technical aspects of any potential problem. I will try my level best to
explain the pros and cons and what are the ways we can resolve the issue as safety is
a major concern not only for the engineer but also for company and its clients. If it
doesn’t work out I will follow the hierarchy and inform the decisions makers of the
company according to structure to look carefully over the matter, it’s always wise to first
to work within the company structure, since many companies have independent
organizations to investigate safety issues.
As responsible engineer should have ensured that Ford officials were completely aware
of the inherent design flaws and the repercussions this would have on the public and
their product.
It will be sad and as an engineer my failure if company suffers, poor decisions should
never occur or be later rationalized because management doesn’t or didn’t understand.
In addition, I will keep record and track of all the documents and files, as a record if
needed in future.
If Arthur is very concerned about the safety of the towers and Rachel Williams refuses
to listen to his concerns then Arthur may be justified in taking his concerns elsewhere.
However, in this case he should go back to Rachel Williams first and reiterate that he is
very worried about the integrity of the towers.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness,
and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
Responsible, because will be distasterous

Because of their technical background, engineers are more likely to grasp the posible
societal and safety implications of a technolgy or a product than either company
management or the general public. An engineer has he responsibility to inform
management of possible safety hazards in products he or she is developing. if
management does not respond appropraiately, the enginer has a responsibolty to work
within his/her company to make sure that his/her concerns are known and given due
consideration. Try to convince and workout eiher cost effective way being loyal to
company or delay yhe production by nay means, more than design safety is our prioerty
not the target of weight and and cost per car.
Explain it’s not the people at stake also company’s reputatuoin a nd goodwill at stake,
also the engineers working for it, we are to blame for the faulty design and we are
moving away from ethical and moral responsibility

As a responsible engineer and employee, I will Inform and consult with other team
members, one should have good communication skills as well as concern for preventing
harm, rather than trying to prevent causing harm.

Finally the last step involves whistle blow, if at all no action is taken is rectifying the
fault.
The entire issue of whistle blowing is extremely sensitive. Noe that as an engineer you
are dealing with two conflicting obligations- your obligations to your company and your
larger obligations to society.

the engineer ma also have a responsilbity to inform the public. (blow the whistle)
To date, the assumption has been that management has the final say in any such
dispute. But our view is that engineers have a right to some further recourse in seeking
to have their views heard, including confidential discussions with the ethics committees
of their professional societies

Need to be aware of dangers of moral disapproval which can lead to political pressure,
legal controls & even consumer boycotts

HOEVER NOT DISCLOUE THE INFO, FOR SAKE OF COMPANY LIABLE TO

COMPANY.

The relationship between an employee and an employer needs to be based on respect and obedience. However,
the employee only obeys according to the law. There are agencies which the employee can use to report the
matter apart from the court. I would also seek for advice in the workers union of the company. In fact this
would have been the first places to consult before engaging the courts.

Proceed in a tactful, low-key manner. Be considerate of the feelings of others involved.

Always keep focused on the issues themselves, avoiding any personal criticisms that
might create antagonism and deflect attention from solving those issues. 4. As much as
possible, keep supervisors informed of your actions, both through informal discussion
and formal memorandums. 5. Be accurate in your observations and claims, and keep
formal records documenting relevant events. 6. Consult trusted colleagues for advice—
avoid isolation. 7. Before going outside the organization, consult the ethics committee of
your professional society. 8. Consult a lawyer concerning potential legal liabilities.

2. Is it ethical for a company, such as Ford, to perform cost-benefit analyses when lives
are involved? Explain your reasoning.

As a society we often perform cost benefit analysis involving lives. If as a society we did
not allow any degree of risk, then all cars would be built like tanks. Clearly some degree
of risk is acceptable if the benefits are sufficient.
I think safety is a matter of how people would find risks acceptable or unacceptable if
they knew the risks and were basing their judgments on their most settled value
perspectives. To this extent safety is an objective matter. It is a subjective matter to the
extent that value perspectives differ. In what follows we will usually speak of safety
simply as acceptable risk.
Cost benefit analysis was used by all companies. Ford used the loop hole, they tried
maintaining the minimum standards and proceed with the launch. Instead they could
have warned the regulatory bodies or suggest them in improving the clause and
requirements for public safety. They tried to maintain the minimum standards to clear
any obstacles for starting production, as well the figures they used for cost benefits
analysis not appropriate. We cannot value human life and take iserious burn njuries
lightly. It’s our moral duty to respect life, law and the public good.
Rather the engineers justified by saying they use it themselves and while usung rear
trunk they keep things as far as possible from gas tank.
The controversial numbers were those Ford used for the "benefit" half of the equation. It
was estimated that making the change would result in a total of 180 less burn deaths,
180 less serious burn injuries, and 2,100 less burned vehicles. These estimates were
multiplied by the unit cost figured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
These figures were $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle
equating to the total "societal benefit" is $49.5 million. Since the benefit of $49.5 million
was much less than the cost of $137 million, Ford felt justified in its decision not to alter
the product design. The risk/benefit results indicate that it is acceptable for 180 people
to die and 180 people to burn if it costs $11 per vehicle to prevent such casualty rates.
On a case by case basis, the argument seems unjustifiable, but looking at the bigger
picture complicates the issue and strengthens the risk/benefit analysis logic.

Most people found it reprehensible that Ford determined that the $11 cost per
automobile was too high and opted not to make the production change to the Pinto
model.
Ford stated that its reason for using a risk/benefit analysis was that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required them to do so. 13   The
risk/benefit approach excuses a defendant if the monetary costs of making a production
change are greater than the "societal benefit" of that change. This analysis follows the
same line of reasoning as the negligence standard developed by Judge Learned Hand
in United States vs. Carroll Towing  in 1947 (to be discussed later). The philosophy
behind risk/benefit analysis promotes the goal of allocative efficiency. The problem that
arose in the Ford Pinto and many other similar cases highlights the human and
emotional circumstances behind the numbers which are not factored in the risk/benefit
analysis.
The Ford Motor Company contended that by strictly following the typical approach to
risk,/benefit analysis, they were justified in not making the production change to the
Pinto model. Assuming the numbers employed in their analysis were correct, Ford
seemed to be justified. The estimated cost for the production change was $11 per
vehicle. This $11 per unit cost applied to 11 million cars and 1.5 million trucks results in
an overall cost of $137 million.

the key is tthat the cost and beneft need to weighted by the socirty rather than just the
compny. This is necessary for two reasons, first the benefits and costs are different -
society will not consider Ford’s profits to be as beneficial as ford will altough society will
have some benfit.
second, since the costs are brone by socity, it is only fair that socity makes the decision.

According to the design plan, the Pinto was to weigh no more than 2,000 pounds and
cost no more than $2,000.

As a society we elect to take certain risks because of the possible benefits we may gain
for example we chose to have a 70 mph speed limit on highways rather than drive at
20mph which would reduce the number of accidents, because the higher speed allows
us to reach our desitnation faster. the key to the society thaking these rsik is that the
member of society give an informed consent.
As a society we perform cost benefit analyses involving lives all the time. The 200000
figures for a human life looks incredibly low, but ford didn’t just come with this figure-it
was the same figure used by the government for other purposes.

Effect all,
environmnt . govt,
SLIDEDS

The analyses involved a high degree of uncertainty who really knew how many lives, if
any, would be lost due to the pinto’s design.

Do you think that the public was adequately informed concerning the dangers of the
Pinto? Explain your reasoning.

Engineers have ethical responsibilities concerning the public’s safety which are more
stringent than legal obligations. Issue of informed consent. The customer awareness in
late 70’s was not as extensive as it is now. Not also that as engineers we have a deeper
understanding than the general public of complex technical issues, and that we have an
obligation to educate the public and help them make informed decisions.

Engineers create products and processes to improve food produc- tion,

shelter, energy, communication, transportation, health, and protection against natural
calamities—and to enhance the convenience and beauty of our everyday lives. Ethics
involves appreciating the vast positive dimensions of engineering that so deeply enrich
our lives. It refers to moral values that are sound or reasonable, actions or policies that
are morally required (right), morally permissible (all right), or otherwise morally
desirable (good). Accordingly, engineering ethics consists of the responsibilities and
rights that ought to be endorsed by those engaged in engineering, and also of desirable
ideals and personal commitments in engineering.
Before producing the Pinto, Ford crash-tested various prototypes, in part to learn
whether they met a safety standard proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to reduce fires from traffic collisions. This standard would have
required that by 1972 all new autos be able to withstand a rear-end impact of 20mph
without fuel loss, and that by 1973 they be able to withstand an impact of 30 mph. The
prototypes all failed the 20-mph test. In 1970 Ford crash-tested the Pinto itself, and the
result was the same: ruptured gas tanks and dangerous leaks. The only Pintos to pass
the test had been modified in some way–for example, with a rubber bladder in the gas
tank or a piece of steel between the tank and the rear bumper.

Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the
rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead
with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly
jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by
redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact
dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design
but stuck to it for the next six years.

Yes, regardless of whether it would pass the relevant safety standards of the time, it is
Ford’s obligation to make any inherent safety issues known to third parties, such as the
NHTSA. As ford knew during pre-production that the Pinto was an inherently unsafe
design, Ford had a moral and social obligation to amend the issue rather than to
produce the vehicle and pay-out the victims because of the flaw design of the car which
caused puncture of the fuel tank in the event of a rear impact collisionThe Ethical and
moral obligations of the design engineer were to be alert to hazards and risks inherent
in the Ford Pinto to the extent that other members of the Ford team would be alert. It
was also their moral and ethical obligation to inform Ford officials and other third parties
of the design fault present with the Ford Pinto’s fuel system.
The design engineer should have also taken it upon himself to ensure that the flaw in
the design was amended before the product was released to the public in order to
ensure effective use of ALARP strategies to ensure risk minimization.
Alternate route to make it cheaper and safer, to please customers. We should act
responsible company to customers not drive them to unknown risks.

Would you report this information publicly if it meant that you would most likely be fired
and perhaps “blackballed” by your industry making it very difficult to find work as an
engineer again? Explain your decision. [ 10 marks]

Engineers must inform public about technology in which they are involved

Obligations towards employers and clients

Keep secret confidential information
Responsibility towards the public and society (safety, health, environment, welfare)

Professionalism and loyalty to ones company should only be forfeited if it is to prevent a great
harm to the public.

In this case, the responsibility of George as the one in charge of the project ends once the project is complete.
He is the main adviser for all the necessary requirements for the project. He is expected to ensure that the
standards are met and that there shall be no safety problem with the installation. This means that George could
defend his position ethically by referring to the principle guidelines set out in the code of ethics. He could refer
to the code of ethics of the company or the general code of ethics that governs the association of engineers in
his country.

Whistleblowing should always be undertaken in a professional manner and should

always be weighed against other concerns such a loyalty to one’s company and
colleagues.

Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting
rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm
is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount
Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at
risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles
who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck.
Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of
consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.

Whistle-blowing:
Acceptation of subordinate role as engineer, but endeavour to find channels to air his
grievances
on safety. This may lead to conflicts with the employer.
 Richard de George has proposed guidelines when whistle-blowing is morally
required:
1) Organization do serious and considerable harm to the public,
2) Whistle-blower has identified threat of harm, reported it and concluded that
the
superior will do nothing effective,
3) Whistle-blower exhausted other internal procedures,
4) Whistle-blower has (or has accessible) evidence,
5) Whistle-blower has good reason to believe that revealing the threat will
(probably)
prevent the harm at reasonable cost.
Whistle-blowers may be unavoidable, but it forces people to make big sacrifices and the
effectiveness is often limited.
More constructive if at earlier stage concerns were addressed. This demands a role
model in which engineer as professional is not necessarily opposed to the manager.

-
Any company is not obliged to proceed with a product if there is any possibility the
product can cause any harm.
Ford was aware the pintos safety problems, and knew that the problems could be
corrected at minimal cost, and reasonable engineering practice would have been to
correct the problems.

ford was fully aware of the faulty fuel tank that often ruptured during rear-end impact.
they decided it was to late to redisgn and go by the faulty gas tank. this measures bcoz
of cost conscious buyers
cos on saftey reflects buying behaviour

cost 11 per car, 12,5 million that means 137milion

180 burnt deaths according to stas. human life 200000

insurance 67000
residual value 700
49.15 million expenses

ignire field reports

neglect safty issue
Betraying the loyal cutomers.

right to live is a moral right of the people.

j
Ford’s duty of care was a legal obligation to avoid causing harm to consumers and the
public,
especially through negligence. Ford also needed to take reasonable precautions to
avoid foreseen and significant risks from hazards.
Ford’s engineers needed to exercise care, skill and diligence in the performance of their
work. This includes being aware of new advances, discoveries and developments in
safety and crash mitigation technology as well as the associated hazards and risks
inherently related to automotive safety. If Ford’s engineers were aware of a risk
associated with the Pinto automobile, it is also their duty of care to inform the NHTSA
and clients of that risk. Finally, if one of Ford’s third parties (client) suffers damage
because of the engineer’s failure to warn of an inherent risk associated with the
Engineer’s
work, a duty of care is also owed.

==
Ford engineers discovered in pre-production crash tests that rear-end collisions would
rupture the Pinto’s fuel system extremely easily’

Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this
defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway’ frameworks when
dealing with issues related to safety and approaches to making
decisions about public safety. It recognises that decision-making in engineering can
involve ambiguity and differences in opinion in this market, Ford needed to have
a product that had the size and weight of a small car, had a low cost of ownership and
clear product superiority. The Ford Pinto went on to become one of the 1970’s
best selling cars.

The gas tank and the rear axle were separated by only nine inches. There were also
bolts that were positioned in a manner that threatened the gas tank. Finally, the fuel
filler pipe design resulted in a higher probability that it would to disconnect from the tank
in the event of an accident than usual, causing gas spillage that could lead to
dangerous fires. 

Typical for passive responsibility is that the person who is held responsible must
be able to provide an account why he/she followed a particular course of action and
made certain decisions.

Social/moral ideals (wanting to implement technological ends to improve the world).

Professional ideals are part of professional responsibility in as far they stay
within the limits of what is morally allowed (sheet: motivating or inspiring aim as an
engineer Conflict: responsibility to the company in which they work versus
professional responsibility as engineers including responsibility for human welfare.

Consider using a non-threatening approach to voice your concerns. “You can

always approach a situation with a ‘what if’ scenario and not use the names”
of people who may be involved, explains Moscony.

f you see, experience, or suspect an ethics breach at your employer, gather

and document your facts and questions, check the issue escalation policy,
and then talk privately to your immediate supervisor and the chief compliance
officer.

“If you are in a supervisory or compliance position and you know something is
a serious violation but your company refuses to do anything to stop it, I
believe you have an obligation to ‘report and run,’” says O’Brien. This is
especially true if you are responsible for handling the issue but are denied
company resources to do so or if you are not sufficiently empowered to do
your job. “Then it’s time to go,” she says.
“As hard as it is to say goodbye to steady employment,” adds O’Brien, “it is
not good for you to stick around on a job where the environment is hostile to
compliance and ethics.”
“Supervisors, principals, and chief compliance officers all have personal
liability,” notes Moscony. “You can’t just continue to work where there are
significant [unresolved] issues.” In addition, if regulators suspect fraud, they
could loop you in if they believe you didn’t do anything to stop the activity.
Most concur that quitting is often a last resort but may be the right course of
action. “I suggest that if you think the firm is not prepared to do the right thing,
then you should be prepared to abandon ship,” says Feiman.
“It is always difficult to advise an employee to terminate his/her employment,”
says Pitt. “Employees should not remain at a firm where they are being
utilized or would become caught up in the facilitation of whatever improper
breaches have occurred and are ongoing.”

It’s easy for us to say that you should “do the right thing” and flatly
refuse any unethical demands. But in reality, the decision is often
more complex than that, and there are very real risks you could face.
t the very least, there could be social costs in whistle-blowing. Some
people have found themselves uninvited from happy hours or given
cold shoulders in the hallway.

ALARP, which stands for "as low as reasonably practicable", or ALARA ("as low as reasonably
achievable")

Government, environment, shareholders, supliers, employees, local community

Save so many lives, regain customer confidence, brand valiur increase

Extra expen/hogh price but 11 only

Accept mistakes and take corrective measures

Being loyal to company/ being responsible to society having personal values and beliefs

Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding,
the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an
analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths.  The company used the accepted risk/benefit
analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit.  Based on
the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths,
injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change. 
formula focuses on a specific accident, while the risk/benefit analysis requires an examination of the costs, risks, and
benefits through use of the product as a whole.  Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the design
changes which would have made the Pinto safer.  However, just because it was legal doesn't necessarily mean that it
was ethical.  a price cannot be put on saving a human life.
it seems unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would cost too
much to prevent it.  Second, the analysis does not take into all the consequences, some things just can't be measured
in terms of dollars, and that includes human life. 

nternal Ford documents revealed Ford had developed the technology to make improvements to
the design of the Pinto that would dramatically decrease the chance of a Pinto "igniting" after a
rear-end collision.11This technology would have greatly reduced the chances of burn injuries and
deaths after a collision. Ford estimated the cost to make this production adjustment to the Pinto
would have been $11 per vehicle.12   Most people found it reprehensible that Ford determined
that the $11 cost per automobile was too high and opted not to make the production change to the
Pinto model.

The controversial numbers were those Ford used for the "benefit" half of the equation. It was estimated that making
the change would result in a total of 180 less burn deaths, 180 less serious burn injuries, and 2,100 less burned
vehicles. These estimates were multiplied by the unit cost figured by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. These figures were $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle equating to the
total "societal benefit" is $49.5 million. The risk,/benefit results indicate that it is acceptable for 180 people to die
and 180 people to burn if it costs $11 per vehicle to prevent such casualty rates.

Ford

team. After the basic design was complete, crash testing was begun. The results of crash testing revealed that when
struck from the rear at speeds of 31 miles per hour or above, the Pinto's gas tank ruptured. The tank was positioned
according to the industry standard at the time (between the rear bumper and the rear axle), but studs protruding from
the rear axle would puncture the gas tank. Upon impact, the fuel filler neck would break, resulting in spilled
gasoline. The Pinto basically turned into a death trap. Ford crash tested a total of eleven automobiles and eight
resulted in potentially catastrophic situations. The only three that survived had their gas tanks modified prior to
testing.55

There were several options for fuel system redesign.  Under the strict $2000 budget restriction, even this nominal
cost seemed large.

essence adopted a policy of allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could have
prevented it. From a human rights perspective, Ford disregarded the injured individual's rights and therefore, in
making the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethicallv. 62

Whistle blowing’ describes the action taken by an employee who notifies outside authorities that
the employer is breaking a law, rule, or regulation or is otherwise posing a direct threat to the
safety, health, or welfare of the public.
If an employee is fired or otherwise retaliated against for whistle blowing, an attorney should be
consulted to identify legal protections available to the employee. If it becomes necessary to blow
the whistle, the employee must advise the appropriate regulatory agency or a law enforcement
agency of the illegal act.
Whistle-blowing is sometimes career suicide.
Case of bribe or anything. Keep documnts safe
The right to safe products. A company should sell no product that it suspects of being unsafe for
buyers. Thus, producers have an obligation to safety-test products before releasing them for
public consumption. 2) The right to be informed about a product. Sellers should furnish
consumers with the product information that they need to make an in- formed purchase decision.
Do you:
a. Match your competitors since you are continually losing out to them.

b. Submit a report to CROSS (Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety).

c. Raise the matter with the relevant Trade Association.
d. Raise the matter with the sub-contractor who is your client.

INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE(S)
a. Match your competitors since you are continually losing out to them.
 

1. Respect for life, law, the environment and public good

• hold paramount the health and safety of others
2. Accuracy and rigour
• identify, evaluate, quantify and mitigate risks
3. Leadership and communication
• maintain and promote high ethical standards and challenge unethical behaviour

Even if the company doesn't fire you, you're likely to face an unfriendly work
environment. This is probably bad for your future employment. a car was going to burn if
it were to take a rear-impact at low speeds

Laws, when carefully formulated and enforced, provide two types of benefits for the
public, in addition to protecting the responsible whistleblower. They are episodic and
systemic. The episodic benefits help in preventing any harm to the public in particular
situations. The systemic benefits are in sending a strong message to the industry to
act responsibly or be subject to public scrutiny once the whistle is blown.